Mayor Rahm Emanuel is taking another crack at heavily regulating firearms in Chicago after a federal court ruled an outright ban on gun sales was illegal: Requiring gun dealers to videotape sales.

Under a plan Emanuel is preparing to introduce, gun dealers would videotape the sales “to discourage traffickers and buyers who use false identification,” according to a report from the city detailing the specifics of the ordinance.

In addition, the proposal would require a 72-hour waiting period for purchasing handguns and 24 hours for rifles and shotguns. A dealer would be able to sell only one handgun per month per buyer, and the store records would be subject to quarterly audits to discourage trafficking.

If a business license is revoked for failing to follow the law, “former key employees and managers cannot reopen immediately in the same location.”

[Janey Rountree, the mayor’s deputy chief of staff for public safety] said similar safety measures were imposed on gun stores in New York City in a settlement of a 2006 lawsuit the city brought against 20 firearms dealers.

Those stores agreed to videotape the “point of sale” when a customer bought a gun, Rountree said. Their employees also received training from a retired federal agent on identifying potential “straw purchasers,” people who can legally buy guns but then supply criminals with them.

As a result, those dealers saw an 85 percent drop in the number of “crime guns” they sold, Rountree said.

The one gun a month rule, though, has been successfully challenged elsewhere.

On a related note, armed criminals have been targeting businesses that choose to restrict concealed carry users from entering their stores and shops while armed. So far, this has not happened in Illinois, but it has occurred elsewhere.

I cant say regulations lead to more crime, I can only say that in most cases it seems regulations isn’t impacting the crime. I think there is a point of diminishing return. Rahm is just going well past that point.

These transactions already require and record the person’s name, address, date of birth, etc. The process includes a background check conducted as part of applying for an FOID card, and another background check conducted at the time of sale through the Firearm Transfer Inquiry Program. We also have ready access to photos and other identification records of the buyer. What new, beneficial knowledge would videotaping sales provide that is not already collected as part of this process?

This would seem to create an unnecessary and possibly chilling barrier to the legitimate purchase and sale of firearms.

@formerly
good point.
What does a video tape bring really? you buy from a dealer in Illinois they have the fed forms, the FOID call in, address, often copy of a photo ID…

I hadn’t given it much thought but you are dead on. So now I have a security video of something I already knew happened and already have more details on. What good is it other than to say “we have made it harder to sell a gun”

How long to the tapes need to be kept? Realistically, I would imagine a good number of transactions are already ‘taped’. Many gun shops I’ve purchased from already have closed circuit camera’s for security. So it’t not like customers are going to feel any different. The issue is that those tapes go out of rotation after a few days/weeks/month. I’m willing to bet the proposal will require them to be kept at minimum several years, at max ‘forever’. In that case, I think it’s more of a roadblock for gun shops, simply to provide the reliable electronic storage of the video, cateloged for retreival.

To me the video taping is a minor issue most stores are going to have security cameras anyway and Data storage is fairly cheap. The real question is the zoning issues. The AP story estimates 99.5% of the city will be off limit. Between that and the one a month are the most likely to be challenged.

Personally i think the Video Taping is plain old fashion intimidation. If it causes 10% of customers to drive outside of Chicago proper and prevents stores from being profitable then it helps create a de-facto ban.

A question to anyone who can answer. Is there a Chicago ordinance that prevents a resident from purcasing a firearm downstate and bringing it home to Chicago? I know at one time there were several Chicago specific ordinances.

I hate to say it but there are those, especially first time gun buyers, who feel like they are buying something dirty. Akin to buying Porn. To those folks I could see a video taping requirement intimidating.

You Liberals think any gun regulation is a “reasonable” proposal. No, actually it is not reasonable to restrict the rights guaranteed in the constitution without being able to prove an increase in public safety other then you think it will make us safer. Facts? You same people said concealed carry would be bring the wild west too.
You may not like the 2nd amendment but you are sure stuck with it. Do we ban cars used in a DUI fatality? Blame the people not the inanimate object. Get it for once and for all, Guns are here and they are everywhere. ITS TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH IN CHICAGO! You may want to start with the very basics like turning prison back into prison. Not a one of the bangers care if they go there. Make it a place they fear.

I know that Riverdale limits the number of purchases per month or per every ninety days. Though I’ve never investigated the data myself, I understand that “all guns retrieved” includes guns stolen and recovered but never used in the commission of a crime. The fact that they were stolen counts as a crime. Anybody have a source for the crime gun data?

@ formerly and Ron: My experience as well, ATF paperwork, phone check, copy of FOID and DL. See no safety or value added with video…

Upon further review, that kind of chain e-mail fodder should stay in your inbox. The world isn’t as dangerous as you think it is. Places prohibiting guns are no more “prone” to robbery than the places allowing them are “prone” to accidental discharges. I’d feel safer knowing my customers aren’t packing, but others might prefer the crime deterrent. That’s what is good about the law. I get to decide. Why do you care so much that a business owner doesn’t allow guns in their establishment? Why do you hate freedom?

@RonOglesby - thanks. I really do not see how videotaping the individual offers anything more than what we already have. That includes visual identification, which we already have via their photos in state records such as their driver’s license and most importantly their FOID card which is required to make a purchase.

@How Ironic raises a good question as well concerning storage of those video records.

Doesnt Chicago make money off of sales? Doesnt Chicago need more revenue so badly that they sold their parking meters?

Seems like limiting sales is bad. If they are concerned with trafficing or straw man do cameras and track individual sales. if somone is buying lots of guns, stop by and check on them every few months.

Why? There is nothing Illegal about being nervous. My Aunt was a good example grew up on the farm around firearms but wasn’t into it. (as she said that was a boy thing then) Decided at 50 to buy one due to some issues in her neighborhood. She avoided going to gun shops because she was nervous. Spent an afternoon of show and shoot with family. After that i went with her she bought her first S&W now she goes monthly for more .38.

Rahm’s proposal also requires gun stores to be at least 500 feet from a school or a park. This effectively puts 99.5% of Chicago off limits. I’m not sure what areas would be left (probalbly industrial areas). This, combined with the other additional restrictions (specified waiting periods already required by state/fed law) indicates his proposal is designed to discourage gun shops from opening in the city, as opposed to discouraging residents from buying guns. His proposal also requires a police-approved security plan before the store could open. Anyone want to guess how many security pans the CPD will find acceptable? (Hey, we now allow gun shops in the city, but no one wants to open one - not our fault).

There is nothing you can say to convince me that taping gun sales is in any way intimidating. I don’t see how it relates to your story in the least. The person is going to be nervous (apparently) with our without videotaping. If there is a reason they don’t want to be videotaped then maybe they shouldn’t be buying a gun in the first place because the only reason I can think that you would be nervous about being videotaped is that you are trying to hide something. Sorry. That’s just my opinion.

I don’t completely disagree. I just don’t see any other reason to require video taping. The amount of paperwork required to purchase a firearm from a ffl dealer in IL makes a video tape superfluous. I honestly couldn’t think of any other reason. I could be wrong. I also freely admit to have my opinion of Rham and this issue colored by his persistent push on the lawsuits in this issue.

As to the story i gave i know many who are very nervous about their first purchase. I didn’t like the idea that if you are nervous you shouldn’t purchase. Interestingly i get radio out of STL adn there are several commercials with Female voices talking about how unintimidating certain gun shops are.

==I didn’t like the idea that if you are nervous you shouldn’t purchase.==

I wasn’t thinking about nervous in the way you described in your story. I understand where you are coming from. I guess I’m in the camp of “what would it hurt?” I trust your experience in gun purchasing, though, in terms of the paperwork. I have no experience since I don’t own any guns . . . which is probably a good thing for the safety of others.

William Hale Thompson, Jr., carried firearms during Prohibition — gang warfare in that era seems tame compared to what is occurring now. He was never attacked, but he felt threatened and his wife was the victim of a robbery.

Gang warfare in the twenties was more tame? I don’t think so, but even accepting that dubious premise, the vast majority of murders in Chicago, wouldn’t be prevented if the victim was packing, but more innocent bystanders would die in the crossfire.